In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
Do you have to be a resident of Kentucky to get tested?
In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
Do you have to be a resident of Kentucky to get tested?
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
Do you have to be a resident of Kentucky to get tested?
I'm not sure. I sort of assumed that you did, since I'm also assuming that the Commonwealth is footing the bill.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:
I hope you're wearing a mask*, unless you've gotten a positive antibody test. Good for you, good for everyone else, and gets us back to normal faster.
*anytime you're out in public and/or around people that aren't in your normal "circle"
As mentioned before, I'm blessed with never having a desire to live in a "densely populated area"... So social distancing is much easier 'round here. 99.998% of the masks I have seen someone wearing in my area, are not being worn correctly. And everywhere that I have personal knowledge of, do not require masks. They are recommended by some mandates; but social pressure says different. Even though the harshest social pressure pushers are part of the % that not only don't know how to wear one, or that they are merely "sneeze guards."
As sneeze guards, I get the part about protecting anyone that chooses to get near someone wearing one, but please explain the part of good for you.?
03Panther said:mtn (Forum Supporter) said:
I hope you're wearing a mask*, unless you've gotten a positive antibody test. Good for you, good for everyone else, and gets us back to normal faster.
*anytime you're out in public and/or around people that aren't in your normal "circle"
As mentioned before, I'm blessed with never having a desire to live in a "densely populated area"... So social distancing is much easier 'round here. 99.998% of the masks I have seen someone wearing in my area, are not being worn correctly. And everywhere that I have personal knowledge of, do not require masks. They are recommended by some mandates; but social pressure says different. Even though the harshest social pressure pushers are part of the % that not only don't know how to wear one, or that they are merely "sneeze guards."
As sneeze guards, I get the part about protecting anyone that chooses to get near someone wearing one, but please explain the part of good for you.?
Look up the Hamster mask study.
Two groups of hamsters, kept separate. One is infected, one is not. A fan blows between the two groups, infected to not.
No, this isn’t perfect. Hamsters aren’t humans, not all the same masks in real life, humans don’t live in a lab controlled setting. But it surely proves that masks help both the wearer and anyone around them - although it is best when everyone wears one, because of the 2nd bullet above and if I’m allowed to extrapolate the data a tiny bit, we can determine that just 6% would get it if both were wearing the mask - a 92% improvement from no masks at all.
For most of this, our small, rural county has been at three cases and we knew exactly where they came from. In the past two and a half weeks, that number has risen to over 40 cases. Fortunately, none have died as yet.
My step-daughter is an RN at our local hospital. They have two negative pressure rooms and only twenty-eight beds. It will not take much to overwhelm them, particularly given we have a supermax prison up the road.
I am very, very concerned.
In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :
unless the rodents were wearing their masks correctly, I don't see the relevance. 
Also, there has not been enough time with this virus for experiments to have found data better than SWAG.
Too many statistics were thrown around early in this almost 200 page thread, and used to support panic... fortunately, I'm blessed to not have to be too concerned. Thanks for the reasonable reply
03Panther said:In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :
unless the rodents were wearing their masks correctly, I don't see the relevance.
Also, there has not been enough time with this virus for experiments to have found data better than SWAG.
Too many statistics were thrown around early in this almost 200 page thread, and used to support panic... fortunately, I'm blessed to not have to be too concerned. Thanks for the reasonable reply
Why do you think it’s not relevant? Do you think the methodology was flawed?
This whole mask thing has befuddled me from the start. If we're talking about something that can be spread by breathing it in, then it stands to reason that the less of it you breathe in, the less chance you get enough of it to make you sick. So even if the mask is worn incorrectly or is made of an ineffective material, you're at least reducing the amount that you're breathing in by some percentage. The "healthy people shouldn't wear masks" mantra that was repeated so much just never made a lick of sense. I'll even concede the point that it is possible that a healthy person could contaminate their mask through improper usage and handling, does it not stand to reason that over the aggregate population you would still see an overall benefit? Yes, I understand that there are whole training classes about how to properly wear a mask but there are also whole training classes about how to properly wash your hands and yet nobody said that we shouldn't tell people to wash their hands because they might have a false sense of security or they might do it wrong. You may not get the full benefit but you will get some benefit and start to tilt the percentages in your favor.
And if we're talking about something that can be spread by exhaling, then it also stands to reason that any filtering of it is better than none. Sure, a bit of tee shirt fabric isn't going to stop all the stuff from coming out of your mouth and lungs when you breathe -- even if it's that fabric that the awesome new GRM tee shirt is constructed of! -- but if it stops some, or if it slows the velocity of it enough to keep it from traveling too far, that's a net improvement.
All that said, though, here's the weird thing. And, yes, I know that this doesn't make any sense.
I wear my mask when I'm out and about. I forgot it in the car twice since this started, but other than two short store visits, I've had it on when I'm in a store and while it's kind of uncomfortable and fogs up my glasses (yes, I've tried that trick you're going to tell me about and it didn't work, but thanks), I'm an adult and that's just what adults do. When I see people without masks on, it doesn't really bother me at all. Yes, even knowing that the mask that they should be wearing is to protect me. I figure that I made the choice to go in to the store and I knew there would be unmasked people there, so that's just the risk that I've accepted.
But when I see a sign on a store saying that masks are required to enter or I hear people saying "wear a mask!", it really gets under my skin in a way that I can't explain. Maybe it's just my contrarian nature, but whatever it is hits me like nails on a chalkboard. Don't even get me started on having a governmental regulation that requires it! The whole requiring a mask thing, though, seems to have a much more solid basis in hygienic fact than "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and yet when I go into a store and see somebody without shoes on, I'd freaking send them to Gitmo for waterboarding if they'd let me make the decisions around here!
Like I said, though, I know it doesn't make any sense, but it's what I got.
03Panther said:In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :
unless the rodents were wearing their masks correctly, I don't see the relevance.
If they were wearing their masks more correctly, would the rates of infection have gone up?
nderwater said:
The article that goes with that map is really good:
Half of deaths are in nursing homes
Looks like we have severely mis-managed care facilities, especially in some states where death rates are the worst. It also looks like the risk factors for the general populace are significantly lower when care facilities are accounted for.
It didn't have to be this way...
wae (Forum Supporter) said:This whole mask thing has befuddled me from the start. If we're talking about something that can be spread by breathing it in, then it stands to reason that the less of it you breathe in, the less chance you get enough of it to make you sick. So even if the mask is worn incorrectly or is made of an ineffective material, you're at least reducing the amount that you're breathing in by some percentage.
That's the problem. That's not true.
Air will take the path of least resistance. If the mask is worn without a tight seal, the air is not filtered through the mask. It comes around it. That's why people's glasses fog.
The masks as worn by more than 90% of the people I see wearing them are NOT offering any protection to the wearer. They are not breathing through them.
That's not entirely bad. Surgical masks are exactly the same thing. They are not a tight fit, and offer no protection to the wearer. They are NOT designed to. They are designed to offer protection to the patient. Heaven forbid a surgeon sneeze into the open chest cavity of a patient.
All of you saying you're seeing people who aren't wearing them correctly... You obviously know how to wear them correctly. So at a minimum, you should be wearing them, correctly. It helps protect you and others.
Is that really controversial at this point? Or am I misinterpreting things because the "printed" word doesn't convey emotion/meaning correctly for this?
As an aside, we're using homemade cotton masks. They're doubled up, so two layers. In between the layers, we have a blue shop towel. I can't find the articles now - only instructions on how to make them - but blue shop towels are a pretty damn good filter, apparently, at least the Tool Box brand is. Easy to replace daily.
In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
My aunt is in an assisted care facility in western NC. After visiting her last year, I can understand how something could spread quickly in one of those places. The rooms are basically wide open all of the time. I would suspect the HVAC system is mainly a recirc system with the minimum outside air required and minimal filtration. Staff are constantly running from resident to resident with little time to disinfect themselves between contacts. Many residents like my aunt have dementia and have trouble understanding the increased risks and why they all of a sudden can't go out into the common areas to see people.
While I'm sure many of the SOPs have been adjusted (keep doors closed; wash hands, masks, etc.) since this all started, the facilities themselves are generally not constructed with isolation in mind. Anything that gets in would likely spread quickly before anyone realized what happened. Even if they recognized the problem early and tried to take precautions.
In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
Everything that I've been able to find says that if the mask isn't fitted properly it doesn't provide as much protection or effective protection. If you're dealing with an industrial use where getting even a small dose of whatever is super risky I can absolutely understand how that would be on par with not wearing a mask at all. You either breathe none of the inhalant and avoid cancer or you get a little bit of it and *bam* herpes. But I've painted with tightly-fitted respirators, no mask at all (I sorta forgot), and a respirator that was falling off my face the whole time (elastic broke). There was definitely an improvement in how I could breathe the next day with the one that was ill-fitting and not sealed up versus the no-mask mistake. I know that's anecdotal, but it really makes me want to figure out how to build a model and test it!
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
My aunt is in an assisted care facility in western NC. After visiting her last year, I can understand how something could spread quickly in one of those places. The rooms are basically wide open all of the time. I would suspect the HVAC system is mainly a recirc system with the minimum outside air required and minimal filtration. Staff are constantly running from resident to resident with little time to disinfect themselves between contacts. Many residents like my aunt have dementia and have trouble understanding the increased risks and why they all of a sudden can't go out into the common areas to see people.
While I'm sure many of the SOPs have been adjusted (keep doors closed; wash hands, masks, etc.) since this all started, the facilities themselves are generally not constructed with isolation in mind. Anything that gets in would likely spread quickly before anyone realized what happened. Even if they recognized the problem early and tried to take precautions.
Many of them are also old buildings.
Anecdotally, I'm familiar with 4 of them:
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
That's exactly correct.
I build both hospitals and nursing facilities. Nursing facilities do not generally have HVAC systems isolated or filtered individually room-by-room. ICU's do.
It's a respiratory illness. If you put a patient who is positive in one room and close the door, the HVAC system circulates the air to all the other rooms. It's designed to. it makes no difference how much PPE the nurses wear.
Confining COVID positive elderly people to facilities that were not designed to isolate air is a terrible mistake. It's criminal.
As the article notes, any state doing this should change the practice immediately.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:wae (Forum Supporter) said:This whole mask thing has befuddled me from the start. If we're talking about something that can be spread by breathing it in, then it stands to reason that the less of it you breathe in, the less chance you get enough of it to make you sick. So even if the mask is worn incorrectly or is made of an ineffective material, you're at least reducing the amount that you're breathing in by some percentage.
That's the problem. That's not true.
Air will take the path of least resistance. If the mask is worn without a tight seal, the air is not filtered through the mask. It comes around it. That's why people's glasses fog.
The masks as worn by more than 90% of the people I see wearing them are NOT offering any protection to the wearer. They are not breathing through them.
That's not entirely bad. Surgical masks are exactly the same thing. They are not a tight fit, and offer no protection to the wearer. They are NOT designed to. They are designed to offer protection to the patient. Heaven forbid a surgeon sneeze into the open chest cavity of a patient.
I agree, it's sort of like the sneeze glass above the salad bar. No it's not filtering the air very well. But it is probably blocking a good amount of droplets.
And, let's not forget the psychological aspects of wearing a mask. They might give the wearer benefits in terms of feeling safer or feeling charitable or feeling in control or whatever. So in that perspective, if it makes the wearer feel better, then what issue do I have with them doing it? Even if they're doing it wrong? I don't care if someone else wears boots wrong. Or ties their tie around their head. Or wears their backpack on the front.
A lot of people who are normally in the "you do you" mindset are surprisingly riled up about other people's clothing accessories.
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:A lot of people who are normally in the "you do you" mindset are surprisingly riled up about other people's clothing accessories.
I disagree. I see a lot of people who are "you do you" mindset getting angry because others want to dictate what others do.
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:wae (Forum Supporter) said:This whole mask thing has befuddled me from the start. If we're talking about something that can be spread by breathing it in, then it stands to reason that the less of it you breathe in, the less chance you get enough of it to make you sick. So even if the mask is worn incorrectly or is made of an ineffective material, you're at least reducing the amount that you're breathing in by some percentage.
That's the problem. That's not true.
Air will take the path of least resistance. If the mask is worn without a tight seal, the air is not filtered through the mask. It comes around it. That's why people's glasses fog.
The masks as worn by more than 90% of the people I see wearing them are NOT offering any protection to the wearer. They are not breathing through them.
That's not entirely bad. Surgical masks are exactly the same thing. They are not a tight fit, and offer no protection to the wearer. They are NOT designed to. They are designed to offer protection to the patient. Heaven forbid a surgeon sneeze into the open chest cavity of a patient.
I agree, it's sort of like the sneeze glass above the salad bar. No it's not filtering the air very well. But it is probably blocking a good amount of droplets.
And, let's not forget the psychological aspects of wearing a mask. They might give the wearer benefits in terms of feeling safer or feeling charitable or feeling in control or whatever. So in that perspective, if it makes the wearer feel better, then what issue do I have with them doing it? Even if they're doing it wrong? I don't care if someone else wears boots wrong. Or ties their tie around their head. Or wears their backpack on the front.
A lot of people who are normally in the "you do you" mindset are surprisingly riled up about other people's clothing accessories.
That's fair, but that is not at all what I was trying to communicate.
I'm not riled by people's clothing accessories. I was specifically responding to Wae's statement about air filtration.
I am, however riled by people being riled that I generally choose to not wear one.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:I am, however riled by people being riled that I generally choose to not wear one.
This.
Not riled up I see ;)
Think of it like any other piece of clothing. a shirt for example. You are not required to wear a shirt. There are some loose arguable health benefits to wearing a shirt, both to you and to others around you. You WILL get lots of social pressure to wear a shirt if you are shirtless in many places. There are lots of stores and other business establishments that will ask you to leave if you are not wearing a shirt. You might even get into trouble with law enforcement if you continue to try to enter a place that requires a shirt without a shirt. Or if you are a general dick to others who are wearing or not wearing a shirt. You will attract a lot of attention without a shirt.
Still, to shirt or not to shirt is up to you.
bobzilla said:SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:I am, however riled by people being riled that I generally choose to not wear one.
This.
Why you guys so mad about what others think? You don't care what they think of your cars choices right?
The CDC specifically says the general population should not be wearing N-95's. They can restrict breathing, and change blood oxygen levels.
I would say about 50% of people I see wear masks in public, and more than half of them wear N-95's.
The actual recommendation from the CDC is:
CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.
It is critical to emphasize that maintaining 6-feet social distancing remains important to slowing the spread of the virus.
I work hard to maintain other social distancing measures, and do not live or work in an area of significant community-based transmission. When I am in closer proximity or more confined spaces with others, I wear a mask.
It's frustrating to be yelled at and treated like a pariah for not wearing a mask when I am following CDC guidelines, usually by someone improperly wearing an N-95.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
Robbie,
I had someone throw something at me this week, and cuss me out for not wearing a mask. Wide open public space. Are you sure you want to beat that dead horse?
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
